Maruthi Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH SPL.C.NO.238/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.411/2023 REGISTERED BY THE SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(f),376(2)(i)(n) AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC.4,6,8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-II BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU; THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-II BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 14.11.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.2314/2021.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:1898 CRL.P No. 13342 of 2024

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition for anticipatory bail is filed by

¶28

the petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.411/2023 registered by Soladevanahalli Police, now pending in Special C. No.238/2024 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶30

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

¶31

Respondent No.2 is served, but remains unrepresented.

¶32

It is pertinent to mention that First

¶33

Information Report was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i)(n)

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:1898 CRL.P No. 13342 of 2024

¶36

and 506 of IPC and Sections 4,6,8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 against one Pradeep arraigning him as the sole accused.

¶37

On a detailed investigation, charge sheet

¶38

was also filed against the said accused for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 378(3), 506 of IPC and Sections 4,6,8, and 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶39

It was the definite case of the

¶40

prosecution that the accused by name Pradeep committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault

¶41

on a minor girl, aged about 13 years, on account of which she became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 16.12.2023.

¶42

As per DNA Report, the blood sample of the accused Pradeep was excluded from being biological father of the male baby born to the victim.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:1898 CRL.P No. 13342 of 2024

¶45

Application was submitted by the learned

¶46

Public Prosecutor for permitting further

¶47

investigation and to file additional charge sheet, which was permitted by the learned Judge. Subsequent to which, statement of the victim came

¶48

to be recorded once again under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC.

¶49

It is the case of prosecution that during further investigation, it has come to light that five more accused are involved in the case. Accused Nos.2 to 5 came to be arrested. The petitioner, arraigned as accused No.6, apprehending his arrest approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2024.

¶50

I have perused the First Information Report contents and the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1898 CRL.P No. 13342 of 2024

¶52

She has not alleged anything against the petitioner initially. Based on her statements, charge sheet dated 17.12.2023 was filed against accused by name Pradeep.

¶53

It is contended by the learned counsel that

¶54

the petitioner is the father-in-law of accused No.1 and now the entire family members are being targeted.

¶55

The trial Court has rejected the prayer seeking anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the ground that blood sample of the petitioner has to be taken and investigation is not complete in respect of accused Nos.2 to 6 and key witnesses including the victim and her mother are yet to be examined.

¶56

It is no doubt true that the allegations are

¶57

serious in nature, however, neither in the First Information Report nor in the statements of the

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:1898 CRL.P No. 13342 of 2024

¶60

victim recorded under sections 161 or 164 CrPC, allegations are made against the petitioner. It appears that, subsequent to receipt of the DNA report, the Police wants to conduct investigation in a different angle and they have proceeded against accused Nos.2 to 6 on the ground that they too have committed the offence. When the victim in her statement recorded initially, has not implicated the petitioner as one of the accused who committed the offence, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner so as to deny the relief sought by him.

¶61

The petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient surety to ensure his presence before the trial Court. The interest of the prosecution can be safeguarded by directing the petitioner to appear before the IO and cooperate in the investigation. In that view of the matter, by

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1898 CRL.P No. 13342 of 2024

¶63

imposing stringent conditions, relief sought by the petitioner can be granted. Accordingly, the

¶64

following:-

¶65

ORDER

¶66

Petition is allowed .

¶67

Petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.411/2023 registered by Soladevanahalli Police Station, pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, shall be released in the event of his arrest, subject to following conditions:

¶68

a) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶69